Case law

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

281 F.R.D. 531 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 16, 2012

For example, in Brown v. … No. 1062-1, p. 11 of 26 (Order entered in Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.).

Duke v. San Francisco Community College District

District Court, N.D. California · Apr 10, 2020

Id. at 8–10. 21 Generally, California’s Brown Act requires local legislative bodies, including the 22 board of a community college district, to open their meetings to the public. Fischer v. … The court held that presentment of the separate administrative body’s findings to 10 the school board constituted an accusation (essentially, an indictment) requiring notice 11 under the Brown Act.

Bonner v. Fuji Photo Film

461 F. Supp. 2d 1112 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 13, 2006

Compare Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 481-82 (5th Cir.1986) (applying the first-served rule), with Marano Enters. of Kan. v. … Brown, 792 F.2d at 482 . In other words, courts have adopted the first-served rule on the logic that, since all defendants must join in the removal of a case to federal court, see Hewitt v.

Lippert v. Ribicoff

215 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 1963

Brown v. Celebrezze (E.D.S.C.1962), 210 F.Supp. 692, 694 , quoting from Klim-aszewski v. Flemming, D.C., 176 F.Supp. 927 . … Brown v. Celebrezze, supra, 210 F.Supp. at 694.

Bush v. Liberty Life Assurance Co.

77 F. Supp. 3d 900 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 2, 2015

See Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079, 1087 (8th Cir.2009) (holding insurer violated section 503(2) and ordering remand); VanderKlok v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. … See, e.g., Brown v. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs., Inc., 586 F.3d 1079, 1088 (8th Cir.2009). Nevertheless, this distinction is merely stylistic, as Count V references section 502(a)(3) in paragraph 177.

Stanford Daily v. Zurcher

353 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 5, 1972

In Owens v. … (See, e. g., paragraph 9 of answer of defendants Bergna, Brown, and Phelps.)

County of Marin v. United States

150 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 12, 1957

In 1948, the Supreme Court reiterated the purpose of the 1920 Act in Schwa-bacher v. … Civil Aeronautics Board, 2 Cir., 1941, 121 F.2d 810, 815 , American Export Airlines Inc., organized as a subsidiary to American Export Lines, Inc., a common carrier by water, applied to the Civil Aeronautics Board for a certificate

Opalec v. Curry

556 F. Supp. 2d 1036 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 20, 2008

See Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126-27 (9th Cir.2006). DISCUSSION A. … See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1127-28 ; Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr.

Alkebu-Lan v. Hazelwood

District Court, N.D. California · Jan 3, 2022

27 Zachary Brown et al. … Brown.

Berkeley Unified School District v. James I. Barnes Construction Co.

123 F. Supp. 924 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 7, 1954

Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 37 Cal.2d 696 , 235 P.2d. 7, 11 . … Certainly the School Board has the power to refuse a bid where it is made by a non-responsible bidder and award the contract, to' the next lowest responsible bidder. Raymond v.

United States v. Sanchez

27 F. Cas. 946 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 5, 1861

S. v. White, 23 How. [64 U. S.] 255; Mezes v. Greer [24 How. (65 U. S.) 268.] … Kendricks v. Castro, 23 How. [64 U. S.] 442.

McKenzie v. Kirkpatrick

141 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, N.D. California · May 14, 1956

Helen, v. Wyman, D.C. 139 F.Supp. 545 ; Levin v. Gillespie, D.C.1954, 121 F.Supp. 726 ; and Marshall v. Wyman, D.C., 132 F.Supp. 169 . … Further,.he can make to the Board of Correction of and Navy Records, under Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 191a, “We think Congress intended that the Board’s full and ‘final’ review should not be subjected to a further.review, or series

Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Olin Corp.

655 F. Supp. 2d 1066 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 31, 2009

In United States v. W.R. … Agency v.

Ex parte Lee Soo

291 F. 271 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 28, 1923

Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8 .” There is nothing in the record to bring the case within the doctrine of Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 455 , 40 Sup. Ct. 566, 64 L. Ed. 1010 . 2. … Ed. 1040 ; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673 , 32 Sup. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 606 ).

Nakashima v. Kane

628 F. Supp. 2d 1093 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 22, 2008

Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979) ] and [Board of Pardons v.] … The Supreme Court has clearly established that a parole board’s decision deprives a prisoner of due process if the board’s decision is not supported by "some evidence in the record,” or is "otherwise arbitrary.” Sass v.

Meyerhoff v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

728 F. Supp. 613 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 1990

Long v. United States Internal Revenue Service, 742 F.2d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir.1984). … See Public Citizen v. United States Dept. of Justice, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 2563 , 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989); Physicians’ Education Network, Inc. v.

Pratt v. Rowland

856 F. Supp. 565 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 27, 1994

Co. v. Pine Mountain Corp., 724 F.2d 827 , 830 (9th Cir.1984). B. … Meriwether v. Coughlin, 879 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir.1989).

Bowles v. Chu Mang Poo

58 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 1945

In March of 1906 the Illinois District Court, in United States v. … There the board is given powers of investigation similar to those granted to the Administrator in the Emergency Price Control Act. The powers of the board in this regard are set forth in section 161, 29 U.S.C.A.

Zaustinsky v. University of California

96 F.R.D. 622 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 4, 1983

Id It did so by expressing agreement with the decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in Jepsen v. Florida Board of Regents, 610 F.2d 1379, 1384 (5th Cir.1980), and Keyes v. … Gray v. Board of Higher Education, 692 F.2d 901 (2d Cir.1982). (4) The interest in confidentiality outweighs the interest in disclosure. McKillop v. Regents of the University of California, supra. .

Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Quintana Homeowners Ass'n

291 F. Supp. 3d 1003 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 27, 2018

Instead, citing to Signal Cas. v. Harbor Ins. … Gregg was not serving as a "Builder/Developer Board Member" at the time he allegedly made misrepresentations. Therefore, coverage for Gregg is also barred by the Travelers' Builder/Developer exclusion. V.